CORRECTIONS & RETRACTIONS

Post-Publication Discussion, Correction, and Retraction Policy

JUKEJ: Jurnal Kesehatan Jompa is committed to maintaining the accuracy, integrity, reliability, and completeness of the scholarly record. The journal welcomes constructive discussion of published articles and considers issues that may require clarification or editorial action.

Scientific disagreement does not automatically establish that an error or ethical violation has occurred. When evidence indicates a problem with the publication record, the journal determines the appropriate action based on the nature, scope, and significance of the issue.

This policy outlines the journal’s procedures for post-publication discussion, corrections, Expressions of Concern, and article retractions. Its implementation follows relevant guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), including the COPE Retraction Guidelines.

1. Post-Publication Discussion

The journal welcomes questions, comments, criticism, and evidence-based responses concerning published articles. Such discussions may clarify research methods, findings, interpretations, limitations, or implications.

Scope of Discussion

Discussion may address:

  • Research questions, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual arguments.

  • Research design, sampling, measurement, and analytical methods.

  • Data interpretation, findings, and conclusions.

  • Relevant evidence or literature that substantially affects interpretation.

  • Limitations, reproducibility, and alternative explanations.

  • Potential factual errors or omissions requiring clarification.

Submission of Comments

Comments may be submitted to jompaabdi.jomparnd.com with the email subject line Post-Publication Discussion: [Article Title or DOI].

Contributors must provide:

  • The article title, DOI, or URL.

  • A clear explanation of the question or criticism raised.

  • Specific references to the relevant text, tables, figures, or methods.

  • Supporting evidence or scholarly references, where necessary.

  • The contributor’s name, contact information, affiliation where relevant, and any potential conflicts of interest.

There is no specific time limit for reporting substantive concerns about published articles. Contributors are encouraged to report issues as soon as possible.

Editorial Assessment and Author Responses

Editors assess comments based on their relevance, clarity, supporting evidence, scholarly value, and respectful presentation. Criticism must not be rejected solely because it contradicts the original article or a previous editorial decision.

Editors may request clarification, seek independent expert advice, and invite the original authors to respond. Responses must meet the same standards of accuracy and professional conduct.

The absence of an author response does not automatically prevent the publication of substantive criticism. Where appropriate, the journal may state that the authors were invited to respond.

Publication and Moderation

Substantive comments and responses may be published as letters, scholarly comments, or editorial correspondence and linked to the original article. Submission of a comment does not guarantee publication.

The journal may request revisions or reject material containing personal attacks, abusive or discriminatory language, unsupported allegations, confidential personal information, promotional content, or repetitive material that adds no scholarly value.

Anonymous or confidential reports containing specific and verifiable allegations of integrity concerns will be assessed under the journal’s Allegations of Research Misconduct Policy. The identity of contributors whose correspondence is intended for publication will be discussed with them in advance.

Discussion alone does not change an article’s status. Identified errors are assessed under the following sections of this policy, while suspected ethical violations are handled through the journal’s specific procedures.

2. Corrections

A correction is an action taken to amend an error or omission in a published article when the issue can be resolved without invalidating the article’s principal findings or overall conclusions.

Circumstances Requiring Correction

Corrections may be issued for:

  • Errors in authors’ names or institutional affiliations.

  • Missing or inaccurate funding acknowledgements.

  • Incomplete conflict-of-interest declarations that can be rectified through disclosure without requiring more substantial action.

  • Errors in tables, figures, figure captions, references, or supplementary materials.

  • Numerical, textual, or typographical errors that affect understanding but do not undermine the principal findings.

  • Other omissions or inaccuracies requiring an official amendment to the scholarly record.

The significance of an error determines the action required. An issue described as a typographical error, disclosure problem, or analytical error may require a different response if its impact is substantial.

Reporting and Assessment

Authors or other parties should notify the editorial office by email using the subject line Correction Request: [Article Title or DOI]. The report must identify the affected section, explain the proposed correction, and provide supporting evidence.

The editor assesses whether the proposed changes are justified and adequate. Authors may be asked to submit revised text, corrected files, recalculations, or other documentation.

Changes to authorship must also satisfy the journal’s authorship requirements. A correction cannot substitute for the resolution of an authorship dispute.

Correction Notices and Article Updates

An official correction notice must:

  • Clearly identify the original article, including its citation and DOI, where available.

  • Explain the error or omission and provide the corrected information.

  • Explain the impact on interpretation or conclusions, where relevant.

  • Include the publication date, be clearly labelled and accessible, and be linked to the original article.

If the article is updated, the changes must be clearly identified and linked to the correction notice. Substantive changes must not be made silently.

Corrections aim to improve the accuracy of the scholarly record and may address errors made by authors or errors arising during editorial production. If the assessment indicates that a correction would be insufficient, the editor will consider other actions described in this policy.

3. Expression of Concern

An Expression of Concern may be issued when serious, unresolved questions arise regarding a published article and readers need to be alerted, but the available evidence is insufficient to reach a final decision.

Relevant circumstances may include:

  • Serious unresolved questions about the reliability or integrity of the research.

  • An ongoing investigation into substantive concerns or a significant delay in its completion.

  • Inconclusive evidence requiring further assessment.

  • Issues that cannot be resolved because an appropriate investigation is unavailable or considered inadequate.

The existence of an allegation or investigation does not automatically require an Expression of Concern. The editor considers the available evidence, the potential impact on readers, and the proportionality of issuing such a notice.

The statement must explain the concerns without presenting unproven allegations as established facts. It must be linked to the article and updated or followed by an appropriate outcome notice once the assessment is complete.

4. Article Retraction

An article retraction is a formal notice that a published article should no longer be relied upon because serious problems affect its reliability, originality, or ethical acceptability, or because another reason satisfies the applicable provisions of relevant COPE guidelines.

Grounds for Retraction

Retraction may be warranted when evidence indicates:

  • Unreliable findings resulting from fabrication, falsification, serious methodological errors, calculation errors, or other major problems.

  • Substantial plagiarism.

  • Redundant or duplicate publication without appropriate disclosure, justification, permission, or acknowledgement.

  • Research conducted unethically.

  • A compromised or manipulated peer-review process.

  • Fabricated or falsified essential research materials or evidence.

  • Absence of required permissions, ethical approval, or informed consent, where this materially affects the ethical acceptability of the research.

  • Material undisclosed conflicts of interest that seriously affect the interpretation of the work or the integrity of the editorial assessment.

  • Other serious issues that meet the grounds for retraction under relevant publication ethics guidelines.

Purpose and Proportionality

Retraction aims to correct the scholarly literature and alert readers, rather than punish authors. Retraction may result from ethical misconduct or from a significant, unintentional error. Retraction alone does not establish that an author has committed an ethical violation.

Authorship disputes alone are generally not grounds for retraction when the findings remain reliable. Citation issues, disclosure problems, and other concerns are assessed individually; not every problem warrants retraction.

Decisions and Author Involvement

The editor determines whether retraction is justified after assessing the available evidence and relevant guidelines. Authors are normally informed of the concerns identified and given an opportunity to respond.

Retraction may be requested by the authors or initiated by the journal. Author consent is not required when the evidence supports retraction. Similarly, an author’s request for retraction does not automatically establish that retraction is necessary.

Retraction Notices

The journal publishes a notice that:

  • Clearly identifies the affected article, including its DOI where available.

  • Explicitly states that the article has been retracted.

  • Adequately explains the reasons for retraction so that readers can understand the decision.

  • Identifies the party retracting the article and, where relevant, whether the authors agree with or dispute the decision.

  • Distinguishes established findings from unresolved allegations and differentiates ethical misconduct from unintentional error where the evidence permits.

  • Avoids unsupported allegations and unnecessary personal information.

  • Remains freely accessible and is linked to the affected article.

The availability and status labelling of retracted articles are described in Section 6.

5. Editorial Assessment and Referral

Concerns may arise through reader discussions, notifications from authors, institutional reports, or communications from other parties. The journal assesses the significance of the issue and the supporting evidence impartially.

The assessment may include reviewing the article and its publication history, examining supporting materials, requesting explanations from the authors, and seeking independent expert advice.

Allegations of ethical misconduct are handled under the journal’s Allegations of Research Misconduct Policy, which addresses confidentiality, independent handling, author responses, and cooperation with institutions.

The journal evaluates the publication record and does not replace formal institutional investigations into a researcher’s conduct. Issues requiring such investigations may be referred to the relevant institution or competent authority.

If an external investigation is incomplete or unavailable, the journal may still take proportionate action based on the available evidence to protect readers and maintain the integrity of the scholarly record.

6. Treatment of Retracted Articles

Retracted articles generally remain accessible as part of the scholarly publication record rather than being deleted.

The article, its landing page, and any available full-text version must be prominently labelled RETRACTED and linked to the retraction notice, where technically feasible.

The journal seeks to preserve bibliographic records, DOIs, publication histories, and related notices so that readers can understand the article’s status.

7. Article Removal

Complete removal of an article is reserved for exceptional circumstances, such as when its availability creates serious legal, privacy, or safety concerns, or when another compelling obligation requires removal.

Retraction and removal are distinct actions. An article is not removed solely because it has been retracted.

When removal is necessary, the bibliographic record or an appropriate explanatory notice should remain available unless a stronger obligation prevents disclosure.

8. Authors’ Responsibilities After Publication

Authors must promptly notify the journal if they discover a significant error or concern in their published work and cooperate in determining the appropriate action.

Reports must identify the article, explain the issue and its impact on the findings, and include relevant supporting materials or proposed amendments.

Authors may respond to scholarly criticism through the procedure described in Section 1. Requests for correction, retraction, or removal are assessed under the relevant sections of this policy and do not automatically result in the requested action.

9. Publication, Linking, and Metadata

Published comments, responses, corrections, Expressions of Concern, and retraction notices must be clearly identified and linked to the relevant articles where technically feasible.

The journal makes reasonable efforts to communicate changes in article status through its website and relevant publication metadata, including updates to registration or indexing services where applicable.

Substantive changes must be documented. The original publication history and subsequent editorial actions must remain understandable to readers.

10. Publication Ethics Framework and Appeals

This policy operates alongside the journal’s policies on Publication Ethics, Allegations of Research Misconduct, Authorship, and Complaints and Appeals.

Each case is considered individually based on the available evidence, the seriousness of the concern, fair treatment of all parties, and the need to maintain the accuracy of the scholarly record.

Requests for reconsideration must provide significant new evidence or identify a specific factual or procedural error. Appeals are handled under the Complaints and Appeals Policy and do not automatically suspend editorial notices necessary to inform readers.

Relevant guideline: COPE Retraction Guidelines.

Summary of Post-Publication Discussion and Editorial Actions

  • Scientific questions or criticism: Discussion and, where appropriate, an author response.

  • Correctable errors where the principal findings remain reliable: Correction.

  • Serious unresolved concerns: Expression of Concern, where necessary.

  • Unreliable findings or other qualifying grounds: Retraction following assessment.

  • Suspected ethical misconduct: Handled under the Allegations of Research Misconduct Policy.

  • Retracted articles: Generally remain available and are clearly labelled.

  • Complete removal: Reserved for exceptional circumstances.

  • Editorial contact: jukej.jomparnd@gmail.com